Skip to main content

tv   Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing - Day 4  CSPAN  September 7, 2018 12:44pm-12:58pm EDT

12:44 pm
>> thank you. >> will >> senator hirono of hawaii taking a moment to speak with reporters after the early session of today's hearing of judge kavanaugh. our camera is out there to hear from some of the members of the committee if they should come to speak at the microphones. we will keep watching this area, and should another committee member come out to speak we will
12:45 pm
bring that to you live. the session is in the break. they will be back just after 1:00 and our live coverage will continue at that time. we will go back to testimony from hearing from outside witnesses and legal experts from earlier today. >> far too often in my career i have felt i was being treated as a female lawyer rather than just as a lawyer. but with judge kavanaugh i have never felt that way. in my interactions with him, i know that i'm being judged on the merits of what i say, nothing less than nothing more. i believe that a person with such sterling credentials and experience as a judge who so clearly values integrity, sensible and fairness is eminently qualified to serve on the supreme court. i therefore enthusiastically support judge kavanaugh'sav nomination. they keep for your time. >> thank you very much. now professor murray.
12:46 pm
>> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, thank you so much for the opportunity to appear at these hearings on the confirmation of judge brett kavanaugh to the united states supreme court. my name is melissa murray and i'm a professor of law at new york university school of law what i teach constitutional law, family law and reproductive rights and justice and serve as a faculty codirector of the women's leadership network. prior to my appointment at new york university i was the alexander morrison professor of law at the university of california berkeley what i thought for 12 years come service faculty director of the berkeley center for reproductive rights and justice, and served as interim dean of the law school. like judge kavanaugh i, too, am a graduate of you law school. over the course of these hearings much has been made of judge kavanaugh's warmness and kindness towards clerks and those in his community. these accounts resonate with me as judge kavanaugh and i have
12:47 pm
traveled in similar professional circles over thetr years. in fact, i have lunch with him and i can attest to his feminist and charming demeanor. but this nomination is not about whom i would befriend her with whom i would have lunch ticket is not about how brett kavanaugh treats a handful of women from elite institutions. it is about real people on the ground, people like the women to my right and the people they represent who will not have lunch h with judge kavanaugh, wo will notau meet with judge kavanaugh but you'll nonetheless depend on judge kavanaugh to protect the constitutional rights to make decisions about their lives. as you heard from women like alicia baker and ms. weintraub, confirming judge kavanaugh to the supreme court would threatee people stability to make fundamental personal decisions including deciding whether to have an abortion. reproductive rights are under serious threat inht this countr. what we've seen over the last two decades is the concerted strategy that would dismantle roe wade piecemeal, not in
12:48 pm
one fellne swoop but rather to a death by a thousand cuts. this nomination is the culmination of the decades long effort to destroy roe v. wade incrementally without necessarily formally overruling it. the supreme court stands as a bulwark against this assault on reproductive freedom. just two years ago in whole woman's health, justice kennedy joyed a majority to reaffirm the undue burden standard first articulated in planned parenthood v. casey, therebyby reaffirming the courts commitment to protecting reproductive rights. but judge kavanaugh's nomination to replace justice kennedy imperils the court's ability to continue to hold the line on reproductive freedom. in garcia, the only abortion case to come before him, judge kavanaugh voted to block a young woman to him -- receiving a more secure and insist she really pregnant against her wishes.
12:49 pm
weeks after she made heraf decision and after she completed all of the state impose requirements. although he claimed to fall supreme court precedent in garza, judge kavanaugh's opinions against a skeptical view of these precedence of you this completely outut of step wh the high court own view of those cases. despite his claims during his confirmation hearings that he was expecting supreme court precedent on minors andin abortion, in fact, his dissent shows the opposite. he ignored the supreme court's holdinghe in 1979 that allows buyers to complete a confidential judicial bypass in blue of parental or guardian consent. jane doe had already met the text of our bit of a judicial bypass her case came before judge kavanaugh so for the delay to seek a sponsor was wholly unwarranted. further, judge kavanaugh did not explain how the governments flat prohibition wholly preventing jane doe from accessing abortion failed to constitute an undue
12:50 pm
burden under casey or a pre-viability banned treaty roe door get away potential harm to jane just in from a further delay against the purported benefits of that delay as it is required by wholeen woman's health. judge kavanaugh's record indgh' garza suggest rather than respecting precedent, he will undermine or ignore it and in so doing he will provide the necessary fifth vote that would utterly eviscerate the right to a portion. during the sink when asked by u.s. senator feinstein whether he agreed with the statement that a woman's right to control for reproductive life impacts ability to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation, judge l kavanaugs reply was not i instead he said, i understand the importance of the precedent set forth in roe v. wade. we have seen this before. in 2005 then judge roberts came before this committee and stated that roe is the settled law of
12:51 pm
the land during his own confirmation process. despite this artist declaration as a justice he voted to uphold a statutory scheme that would have shattered 75% of the clinics in texas. if this is what it looks like to respect precedent and treat roe a settled law, then these are empty promises. since 2011 2011 politicians hae passed over 400 new laws in 33 states that shane pressure and punish women who decide to have an abortion. some of these laws to ban abortion as early as six weeks before a woman may even know that she is pregnant. others would require doctors to convey a false -- kind of abortion leads to breast cancer. the point of these restrictions is to make it difficult, costly and some cases impossible for women to obtain an abortion. as such these restrictions impede women's ability to participate equally in the social and economic rights of the nation and these
12:52 pm
restrictions are especially detrimental to young women,, women serving to make in meet, women of color, immigrant women, world women and women who already have children. in practice these restrictions mean that roe is merely a hollow promise and not a reality for many women. to be clear roe v. wade is not a decision invented by advocate judges. as part of a centuries worth of jurisprudence that protects an entire constellation of rights, rights relating to family, marriage, their haircut, contrn and personal autonomy and intimate life. i vote against roe is whether to overrule it as a formal matter or get it to incremental cuts put all of those rights in jeopardy. and make no mistake about it, about for judge kavanaugh is a vote against roe. thank you for having me. >> thank you. now professor amar. >> thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, distinguished senators.
12:53 pm
my name is iq them are, i'm a sterling professor of law and political science at yale university why specialized in constitutional law. i testified before this committee on seven occasions and always a solemn responsibility to appear here. here are my top ten points. one, but capital is the best candidate on the horizon. supreme court's biggest job is to interpret and apply the constitution. he has studied the constitution with more care, consistency, range, collagen is an thoughtfulness than any other sitting republican federal judgd under h-60. he's the best choice from a long list of 25 potential nominees publicly circulated by president trump. i say this as a constitutional scholar who voted for hillary clinton, i chong supported every supreme court nomination by democratic president in my adult lifetime. point number two, originalism is wise and nonpartisan.
12:54 pm
studying the constitution requires diligence andno intelligence especially for those like f-uppercase-letter who are originalists paying special heed heat to what the constitution's words originally met when adopted. i and and originalists and prioritize the constitution states, history and structure to discern its principles and distill its wisdom wece originalists are following in the footsteps of george washington, alexander hamilton, jane's madison, john marshall, joseph story and abraham lincoln among others. originalism is neither partisan no outlandish. the most important originalists of thetl last century was a towering liberal democratic senator turned justice hugo black of the l driving intellectual force of ther warn court who insisted on taking seriously the constitution's words in spirit guaranteeing free speech, racial equality, religious equality, the right to vote, the right to counsel and much more. among today's scores the originalists signed most often by the supreme court also
12:55 pm
self-described liberal and registerede democrat, yours truly. the best originalists he'd not just the founders' vision but also the vision underlying amendments especially the transformative reconstruction and women's suffrage and minutes -- and ministry prime minister, will be in this tradition. andres and vital issues voting rights, governmental immunities, congressional power to enforce the reconstruction amendments, justice kavanagh constitutional views may well be better for liberals van wert justice kennedy's. number three, kavanaugh's writings reflect proper respect for tradition of precedent. original start with the constitution text and structure but almost always need to consult other sources such as tradition or precedent. harmonizing these different constitutional source of cars great legal acumen. his record show he is adept at harmonization.
12:56 pm
number four, his views on executive power have strong constitutional>> foundations tht many of his views about the executive branch are quite standard. several other executive branch topics cavernosa use are not yet conventional wisdom but are nevertheless, sound and, indeed, align well with the testimony i offered at this in 1998-2017. number five, at best basis for assisting judge kavanaugh is a track record of judge kavanaugh. the judicial track record is more proximate the moment that his pre-judicial life. number six, kavanagh would work well with his new colleagues. i predict kavanagh is studious and open-minded conservative who likes listening to and engaging with moderns and liberals will be a pro intellectual and anti-polarizing force on the court. number seven, judicial nominees should not make substantive promises about how they would rule on specific legal issues nor should the make recusal
12:57 pm
promises that closely proximate substantive promises. number eight, senators may properly oppose judicial nominees some to because they disagree with the nominee's general constitutional philosophy or likely constitutional vote on the bench. number nine, the current senate confirmation process is badly flawed and should be change for future vacancies. number ten, back to number one, responsible naysayers must become naysayers of the circuit famous specifically name better nominees realistically on the horizon. if not brett, who? distinguish republicans, have is your teams brightest judicial star. rejoice. distinguished democrats, don't be mad, be smart, be careful what you wish for. our party controls neither the white house nor the senate. if your torpedo cavity likely end up with someone worse, somewhat less brilliant, less constitutionally knowledgeable, less studious,


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on